Happy Winter Solstice!

This beautiful image is the artwork of Roberta Lannes-Sealy .

I also find it interesting, given that today is the Winter Solstice, that in the weekly e-mail that I receive from Alison Day's tarot website , the card drawn for this week was Death/Transformation. To me, Winter Solstice also represents the circle of life; as one thing ends or dies, another thing begins or is born. In order to be transformed-- to grow, to change, to learn our life's lessons-- to become more and more of who we truly are-- we die to ourselves repeatedly. And we rise, over and over again, from our own ashes. This is fundamental to life; we all experience this at some point in our journeys. Some of us experience it many times...

Here is what Alison had to say this week about Death and Transformation:

How would you feel if I was to say ‘Oh look, you are about to experience a transformation in your life’? Would you be as spooked as if you simply saw the Death card as your outcome card?

I am in the process of creating the Lotus Tarot deck and I will be naming this card ‘Transformation’ because I believe it portrays the true meaning of this card far better and without evoking the chills that the title ‘Death’ card does.

When the ‘Death’ card appears in a reading, the most common thought is that it is predicting a physical death, that someone is going to die. This, in most, if not all, cases is highly unlikely.

I cannot speak for all Tarot readers, but I personally do not use this card to represent a physical death. For me, the Death card represents an event or series of events or circumstances that may cause great disruption and possible upset, but which make transformation in its many forms inevitable.

I am not a medium or clairvoyant, but I do use the Tarot cards to help give men and women around the world some insights into their own situations and to look at their lives from a different perspective. Let me give you some examples: one of the greatest blows any of us can receive, man or woman, is when we fall utterly in love with someone only to be rejected and left alone. Many of you may have
had such an experience and it can feel like your world has fallen apart.

Such incidences can create transformational change within us, changing our outlook and our approach to love and relationships. For example, if someone, who didn’t love you, lets you go, it can open up a whole new set of circumstances and opportunities for you.

There have been numerous case histories of people who have been bankrupt and who have lost everything only to change course and tactics and go on to achieve great success.

For me, the end of something, whether it be a relationship, job, career or lifestyle is only the sign that it is time for something new to be created. If I am no longer in that relationship, I am free to pursue new love. If I have lost my job, I am free to look for a better one and so on.

The tale of the Phoenix sums up the meaning of the Death card quite well, where a bird dies in the flames only to emerge and fly out of the fire transformed into something far greater.

So don’t fear the Death card when it appears. Take it as a sign that something in your life may come to an end. The transition may be challenging but as the end comes to pass a new beginning will present itself.

Love and Joy,
Alison

Thought for the Day

This hour of history needs a dedicated circle of transformed nonconformists. The saving of our world from pending doom will come not from the action of a conforming majority but from the creative maladjustment of a dedicated minority. --MLK Jr.

An Open Letter to My Conservative and Christian Friends

Parts of this were taken from a letter I recently wrote to a dear friend of 22 years. I awoke one morning last week to discover that this person I deeply respect, admire, and love had "de-friended" me on Facebook. Immediately I knew why. The day before, I had posted an article about Rick Warren on my FB profile, with an added comment about Warren being a "bigoted fundie asshat". While it is very true that I am no fan of Warren, and that I do believe his stance on homosexuality to be deeply bigoted and antipathetic, I made two mistakes when I did what I did.

First, I posted the article and incendiary comment on Facebook, knowing full well that I have many politically and religiously conservative friends who would see what I had posted and written the next time they logged in. I've been expressing myself in the wrong forum. (Hence the creation of this blog as an alternative.) I would have never gone to the trouble of forwarding that same article and comment to my conservative friends' personal e-mail addresses; the obvious rudeness of doing such a thing would have prevented me from doing so.

Second, and perhaps more to the point: I chose a hateful way of expressing my sentiments, one that many would find completely off-putting, and rightly so.

I spent the rest of the day crying, hard, at the idea that a thoughtless comment on Facebook may have cost me a friendship that I have held so dear for so long. That I was literally driving my old friends away because of how I chose to express myself. Just how screwed up had my priorities become?

The truth of the matter is that I would not choose to continue a connection to any person who used the word n----r, or who expressed antisemitic views, or who made a habit of writing things I found deeply offensive to my own sensibilities. In fact, I have de-friended people myself in the past, for precisely those reasons. They were always people with whom I had never shared a close friendship to begin with, and I was not sorry to see them go.

Reflecting on this, I realized that I had to apply my own yardstick from my friend's point of view. Again, I shuddered at the thought that I was, to him, what these others had been to me: an annoyance, a lout, an asshat. A left-wing Ann Coulter, if you will. Sure... insulting people can be satisfying, if your goal is to score points. But again, it comes down to intention. What's the goal?

As the Dude said to his friend, "You're not wrong, Walter. You're just an asshole!" I had become Walter Sobchak, without even realizing it. Not everything is about 'Nam.

With some of my conservative friends, I enjoy lively and respectful debates on the subjects of religion, politics, culture, sex, and many other supposedly verboten subjects, or what I like to call, the good stuff. We can rib each other, agree to disagree, sometimes persuade each other on certain points, and then go about our day. I often come away from these conversations the better informed for having had them-- my assumptions challenged, my horizons broadened in some way. I suppose the idealistic side of me is prone to living in a fantasy world where I can enjoy such exchanges with everyone I call a friend.

But that is never going to be reality... especially not if I choose to open up with an insult, which is pretty universally off-putting. A friend recently asked me, "Do you want to be right, or do you want to be heard?" The same friend also lovingly cautioned me to take care not to become that which I claim to abhor. Finally, she teased that I seem to want to ram my opinion down other people's throats, but I want them to like me while I do it. Did she ever hit the nail on the head!

So, in the process of mulling all of this over, I drafted a letter to my dear childhood friend, and I also decided to post here an Open Letter To My Conservative Friends that holds true in general. Here it is:

Recent events in my life have prompted me to take a hard look at how I express my point of view, and I can only say that I was shocked and ashamed at what I found when I did.

They say that when somebody makes you really angry, it's because there's something in them that you recognize in yourself, and that this recognition makes you really, really uncomfortable. In short, those who push our buttons the most are those who mirror back to us the traits that we most deeply dislike within ourselves. One view even holds that these people are precisely the ones for whom we should be the most grateful in our lives, because they are our greatest teachers.

Too often, I forget that, and instead I adapt the most facile, us-vs-them habits of thought.

I am afraid that, without realizing it, of late I have been turning into exactly the kind of left-wing "fundamentalist" that I claim to abhor: sanctimonious, self-righteous, obnoxious.

My political and spiritual convictions may have shifted radically over the years, but in this sense, I haven't changed a bit. It is always a shock to look in the mirror and to realize that, despite all efforts to convince yourself you've "grown", you really are, to quote Kurt Vonnegut, exactly who you were in high school. Imagine my dismay upon discovering how very true this is. The ego is a tricksy little bugger, and mine too often runs the show, I'm afraid.

I have a sharp tongue, a quick temper, and an often profane and sarcastic sense of humour. I tend to use these dubious gifts in the service of alleviating my own sadness, frustration, and dismay... that is to say, when I feel vulnerable. And then I'm always shocked at the consequences. While my intentions are never to offend you or anybody else, that is too often exactly what I end up doing.

I am as deeply convicted in my beliefs as you, my conservative and Christian friends, are in yours, and because of my tempermental challenges, my passion regarding certain matters gets the best of me at times. When I react in the heat of frustration, disappointment or anger, my filter goes missing and I say things that I regret, sometimes alienating people that I care about in the process.

All I can say is that I'm aware of it and I'm working on it. If I have offended you or hurt you, I am truly sorry and I hope you will find it in your heart to forgive me. I would rather you call me on this where you see it, than to go. But I understand that it really isn't your job; I am a grown-up and responsible for my own words and actions.

Regardless of whether or not you choose to stick around, please know that I wish you nothing but the best, now and always.

Going to a Town

It has been a long, cold, lonely 8-year winter for progressives in America. January 20th brings about a change of regime, and it can't come soon enough for me. I will be going to D.C. for the inauguration. Even though Obama was not my first choice-- I was a Kucinich girl-- I am very much looking forward to celebrating the end of the Bush/Cheney years, and seeing the sights of the Capitol for the first time.

Sadly, for those of us involved in the effort to overturn Prop 8 in California, this week brought a big disappointment, in the form of Obama's choice of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. Warren was instrumental in the passage of Proposition 8. He has expressed deeply prejudiced views towards homosexuals. Specifically, he has likened gay marriage to incest and pederasty. And unfortunately, his opinion carries a lot of weight in California and throughout the evangelical community all over the United States, thanks to his best-selling Christian self-help books. I disagree wholeheartedly with Steve Waldman of BeliefNet in his defense of Warren, but I agree completely with his assessment that some on the left confused Warren's "temperamental with political moderation".

Perhaps because I grew up in the world of Evangelical Christianity, Warren never had me fooled for a second. In my opinion he's just another Jerry Falwell, hiding behind his jolly, innocent-looking coutenance. He perpetuates fear-based and hateful stereotypes and myths about homosexuals from his bully pulpit, and that does absolutely nothing to move the sociopolitical climate in the United States towards inclusiveness and equality. So-called leaders like Warren are stubbornly, decidedly not part of the solution, and you know how the saying goes...

It is for that simple reason that I am deeply dismayed, even appalled, that Obama would choose to include him in the events of January 20th.

The argument that Obama, in choosing Warren, is somehow reaching across the aisle or promoting what Waldman calls "spiritual bipartisanship" is utter nonsense. Nobody ever suggested the ridiculous notion that Martin Luther King Jr. give the likes of Bull Connor a "seat at the table". MLK Jr. had clarity of purpose; he saw that Connor and his ilk were the very people who were standing in the way of progress. He moved the cause of civil rights forward in spite of such people. Like Sarah Harmer sang, You must decide/if you will die or grow. It is time for America to evolve beyond this ridiculous, fear-based bigotry. Homophobia is so 20th century.

Yes, I do understand that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a civil rights leader, not a politician. Obama's job is to represent all Americans. Even people like Warren and his sheep. So, I suppose that there's a certain generosity of spirit in extending an olive branch such as this, to those who are flat-out unwilling to extend the same courtesy to the LGBT community. A wrongheaded choice, because it lends more legitimacy to someone whose agenda should not be legitimized, but perhaps done with the best of intentions. That would be a classic liberal mistake, after all.

Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, had this to say: "It's hard to begin a ceremony aimed at bringing the country together by giving the microphone to someone fresh off a campaign in which he was determined to take away rights." Well-put, Mr. Wolfson.

Unfortunately, there is another possible explanation for Obama's choice of Warren. John Cloud of Time may be correct when he compares Obama to Richard Russell Jr., another thoughtful, tolerant-sounding politican...

Christopher Hitchens ponders the matter while delving into Warren's roots in a recent article at Slate:

Is it possible that Obama did not know the ideological background of his latest pastor? The thought seems plausible when one recalls the way in which he tolerated the odious Jeremiah Wright. Or is it possible that he does know the background of racism and superstition and sectarianism but thinks (as with Wright) that it might be politically useful in attracting a certain constituency? Either of these choices is pretty awful to contemplate.

Only time will tell.

Rufus Wainwright's Going to a Town from his album Release the Stars gives voice to the weariness, sadness, frustration and resentment that I'm feeling right now.

Prop 8: The Musical

Marc Shaiman & friends hilarious smackdown of Prop 8 and the religious "logic" behind it:

"Prop 8 - The Musical" starring Jack Black, John C. Reilly, and many more... by Jack Black

Ten Democrats Who Should Go Away

I thoroughly enjoyed this article by Ben Cohen, originally posted at The Daily Banter. I think it too often goes unspoken that the Democratic Party has sold out the American citizenry at least as often, if not more often, than the Republican Party. It bears mentioning that many Democrats really would do more for their party if they would just go away.

By Ben Cohen
December 02, 2008

On Monday of last week, I published an article '10 Republicans Who Should Go Away'. For some reason, the article went down a storm and received well over 100,000 hits. Reading the comments and emails I received was probably more fun than writing the article (which I enjoyed immensely), but I was a little taken aback at the debate I seemed to have sparked off. A host of conservative bloggers were up in arms, raging about liberal 'hate' I was spewing, and the temerity I was showing for insulting their idols. Neal Boortz called me a 'Moonbat', and Michelle Malkin fans left comments on my site accusing me of being a 'liberal terrorist' and a 'communist'. I did however, receive some intelligent emails asking why I was only focusing on Republicans.

The Democrats have in some ways, been worse than the Republicans. As a party, they've stood idly by as the Bush Administration has literally ransacked the country, trashing the constitution and driving the national debt into unchartered territory.

So in order to show the Right that progressives are not reflexive liberals, I thought I would pen an article listing the top 10 Democrats who should go away. And by 'go away', I don't mean censor, or prevent from speaking. I'm asking that they do it themselves - shut up for the good of the country. Here they are (in no particular order):

1. Joe Lieberman

Lieberman is not a Democrat in any real sense of the word - he is a foreign policy hawk and a fiscal conservative, remaining liberal on only a few token issues (abortion, gay rights etc). Lieberman was a vociferous supporter of the War in Iraq, threatening Democrats if they didn't support it and hyping up the non-existent threat from Iran (a country that spends the same amount in a year on its military as the U.S does in a week in Iraq). Lieberman is the quintessential corporate shill, selling his soul to the pharmaceutical companies and defense contractors while painting himself as a 'moral' Democrat, mostly because he doesn't cheat on his wife (see his outrage over Monica Lewinsky) and believes in blowing up Arabs whenever possible. Supporting John McCain was one thing, but breaking a pledge not to go negative on Obama was completely unforgivable. The only reason Joe is still a Democrat is because his party is almost as spineless as him, and won't throw him out for fear of appearing too liberal.

Read More at The Daily Banter

Roger Ebert Reviews Ben Stein's eXpelled

Roger Ebert completely eviscerates Ben Stein's documentary, eXpelled. Satisfying.

By Roger Ebert on December 3, 2008 12:25 AM

I've been accused of refusing to review Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled," a defense of Creationism, because of my belief in the theory of evolution. Here is my response.

Ben Stein, you hosted a TV show on which you gave away money. Imagine that I have created a special edition of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" just for you. Ben, you've answered all the earlier questions correctly, and now you're up for the $1 million prize. It involves an explanation for the evolution of life on this planet. You have already exercised your option to throw away two of the wrong answers. Now you are faced with two choices: (A) Darwin's Theory of Evolution, or (B) Intelligent Design.

Because this is a special edition of the program, you can use a Hotline to telephone every scientist on Earth who has an opinion on this question. You discover that 99.975 of them agree on the answer (A). A million bucks hangs in the balance. The clock is ticking. You could use the money. Which do you choose? You, a firm believer in the Constitution, are not intimidated and exercise your freedom of speech. You choose (B).

Squaaawk!!! The klaxon horn sounds. You have lost. Outraged, you file suit against the program, charging it is biased and has denied a hearing for your belief. Your suit argues that the "correct" answer was chosen because of a prejudice against the theory of Intelligent Design, despite the fact that .025 of one percent of all scientists support it. You call for (B) to be discussed in schools as an alternative theory to (A).

Your rights have been violated. You're at wit's end. You think perhaps the field of Indie Documentaries offers you hope. You accept a position at the Institute of Undocumented Documentaries in Dallas, Texas. This Institute teaches that the rules of the "$64,000 Question" are the only valid game show rules. All later game shows must follow them literally. The "$64,000 Question" came into existence in 1955. False evidence for earlier game shows has been refuted by scientists at the Institute.

Read more at The Chicago Sun-Times

Ten Myths Conservatives Believe About Progressives

In this great commentary, Sara Robinson details some of the most common fallacies in conservatives' beliefs about progressives, and exactly why they're wrong.

By Sara Robinson
November 25th, 2008 - 2:06am ET

Oh, Lordy. It is that time again. Thursday is Thanksgiving— the official kickoff event of the 2008 holiday season. For a lot of progressives, these festivities also mean that we're about to spend more quality time with our conservative relatives over the next six weeks than is strictly good for our blood pressure, stress levels, or continued sanity.

Personally, I'm not a wholehearted fan of turkey—probably because the mere smell of it instantly slams me back into memories of several decades of Thanksgiving dinner arguments with conservative kin that took a turn for the ugly. We all know we're supposed to stick to "safe" topics like the kids, college football, and the weather; and avoid controversial issues like religion, politics and whether oysters belong in a proper bird stuffing. But the afternoon is long, and after the approved topics have been exhausted and that third bottle of Cabernet vanishes and the tryptophan torpor hits, decorum and discipline are at high risk of going all to hell. After that, things can and do get contentious, usually in ways that make everyone wish we could all just go back to fighting over oysters in the stuffing.

These family gatherings were hard enough to stomach through the appalling years of the Bush Adoration—but this year, it's likely to be even worse. Our beloved family wingnuts were insufferable, in a grotesque Mayberry-on-acid surreal kind of way, while crowing into their succotash about the manly Godliness (or was it Godly manliness?) of Our Divinely Ordained Commander-in-Chief. But this year's different. This year, they're on the way out of power—and they're scared witless about it. Which means big steaming heapin' helpings of liberal-bashing are likely to be featured prominently on the menu next to the mashed potatoes, as they put fresh vigor into every paranoid anti-liberal fantasy ever spouted by Rush, Reverend Pat, or their new darling, Sarah Palin.

The black guy won. Armageddon—or, at the very least, socialism, atheism, gun control, and a national epidemic of erectile dysfunction—must certainly be at hand.

As you prepare to head once again into the family fray, it might be useful to note that most of the right wing's favorite anti-liberal slanders are rooted in some deeply-held—and deeply wrong—assumptions about who liberals are, and what we believe. If your relatives, God bless 'em all, insist on going down that road, your best defense this year might be to listen closely for these underlying myths and fables at work—and be prepared to challenge them head-on when they surface in the discussion.

Here's a basic set to get you started. Tuck it away in your bag with your Xanax and Maalox, and apply (liberally, of course) as needed.

1. Liberals hate America.

For the record: Liberals love America. In fact, what makes us liberals is that we actually read and believed all those pretty words in the Declaration of Independence about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and in the Bill of Rights about freedom of speech, religion, assembly, privacy, and all the rest of it.

We're idealists that way. We want to live in the country the Founders described. We believe that the nation's founding documents expressed a uniquely powerful moral contract between the people and their government, and an audaciously positive vision of people's ability and competence to shape their own future. When we get annoying and whiny, it's usually because we believe so much in America's astonishing promise—and our own responsibility for realizing it—that we're sorely disappointed when the country falls short of that standard. We really want to believe we can do better.

Conservatism, by contrast, tends to take a dim view of human nature, prefers hierarchy to liberty, and isn't completely convinced people can or should be trying to contravene the will of God or their betters by trying to arrange their own futures. This tends to lead to a selective reading of the Constitution (as well as the Bible), and—as we've seen in the Bush years—a far more flexible attitude toward its interpretation.

The proof, however, is in the history—and it's pretty irrefutable. America's greatest moments of progress, generosity, and moral strength occurred when the country stuck most closely to its progressive ideals. We loved America so much that we freed the slaves, passed child labor laws, built schools and colleges, gave the vote to women, enacted civil rights laws, rebuilt Europe after a war we helped win, and put a man on the moon. All of these were progressive projects—and all were fought tooth and nail by conservatives in their time, simply because they feared change and saw power as a zero-sum game. Yeah, we sometimes overshoot and miss—but you can't argue with the daring scope of our dreams.

Conversely, most of our worst moments—the Native American genocide, the continued justification of slavery and Jim Crow, the Japanese internment, Abu Ghraib —were conservative projects that were driven by narrow-minded xenophobia and short-term greed, and are regretted by everyone (including most conservatives) when we look back now.

Rick Perlstein has called this out as a predictable pattern: conservatives will loudly obstruct social progress for decades before finally accepting it—and then, they'll insist they were 100 percent for it all along.

Love us or hate us; but we're every bit as American as our conservative friends and relatives, and have been since the day the Declaration was written (by a liberal, in fact).

Read more at Campaign for America's Future